Response Questions 4 WEEK-4

Samuel Kim #2270768

Science: Lecture Course

Assignment #4

            Within the reading “date night at the zoo” Sarah Long states that Noah’s got it all wrong. By this what she was implying the present situation that many Zoos are experiencing today. For instance in the past Zoos would have the option to choose which animal to keep, usually whatever animal most visitors would be eager to see and experience. But these days Sarah is informing the about the current dilemma regarding many zoos being “forced” to receive certain types of animals, because of their endangered status. The Strategic method that zoos are taking to “get it right” is by gathering as many of the endangered species within their zoos and by isolating the males and females of each endangered species and then attempting to breed them within the zoo. The pros of this approach on zoos is the fact that they are given the opportunity to “save the world” by repopulating an endangered species before it becomes extinct like the dinosaurs. The cons of this attempt according to Jack Grisham is the fact that within the past twenty years the association’s cheetah breeding plans which he coordinated has failed to achieve their main objectives of breeding the cheetahs. He states that it has been a very costly and pointless attempt, and that they would have been better off if they had used that money instead on preserving the natural environment, which these cheetahs roamed and lived in.

            The tensions between funding resources and how zoos go about conservation is that some zoos are using the funding to create more “revenue” and ignoring the actual “conservation” where as some zoos are using the funding and ignoring the “revenue”. By “revenue” it is referring back to the reading where they stated that some zoos are using the funding they receive to reproduce more “sea lions”, because they were a main attraction for the zoo, which lead the zoo to purchase more parking spaces, seating, and many other amenities for the public for their zoos. By doing this according to the article they had to ignore the walruses’ which were one of the endangered species that the zoo were expected ensure as well. The article referred these zoo’s as “zoo’s bitter choice: to save some animals and letting others die. According to the articles some people believe that there should be some sort of liability that zoos must be accounted for. For instance Zoos are by law responsible to take care of some of the endangered animals that they have in possession within their zoos and that “revenue” for zoos should be the last priority whether or not a certain animal attracts more visitors to their zoos they must strictly use every dollar that is funded to the zoo to protect the interests of the people of sustaining these endangered species and not going to the zoos to bring in more revenue. According to the articles the primary motive for conservation is for zoos to be responsible for their actions and if they fail to ensure the funding towards the endangered species by law being punished for taking advantage of the people’s taxes that the zoos took for their own personal interests. Zoos that take the public’s taxes should be held responsible by law, and those zoos that use the public’s taxes for what they were originally intended for should not be punished.

            I strongly disagree with this approach. We as humans should not interact with the animals for when we do we disrupt the nature’s equilibrium. Once you start to research different wild species within our natural world, you realize the mother nature has already a system that keeps the world I in check, for instance like the natural “food chain”. Where there are animals, which rely upon another species to survive, and if humans were to disrupt this cycle it can have a catastrophe ripple effect on our world. For instance if we were to fish out all the fish that are out in the sea the animals that relied on the fish would loose their main source of food and become extinct and the animals that relied on those animals that recently became extinct would also become extinct because their main source of food has become extinct. For instance if fish were to become extinct, then for this example lets say that bears only ate fish, then the bears would become extinct, and for this example lets say that jaguars’            main source of food were the bears and if the bears would become extinct than the jaguars would become extinct, and for this example/analogy lets say that humans main source of food were the jaguars then we as humans would become extinct too. This is what I meant by the “ripple effect” and “disrupting nature’s equilibrium”. What the Zoo’s are claiming are completely false, by creating bonds between animals will only “domesticate” wild animals and only strip these wild animals from their natural instinct, robbing these animals of their lives by forcing them to become reliant to humans. These wild animals that are “domesticated” or “being saved through the zoos” are actually just creating a burden on the human population. We as a society are more intelligent and should let mother nature take care of these animals and we as a society should stop trying to “play god” and create “bonds” with wild animals that deserve a chance to live out their lives in the wild, rather than humans interfering and ultimately directing the animals in their own demise.  

            The difference between American and European zoos in terms of their philosophy of captive animals breeding if room does not exist for the adult population to grow given the size of the zoo habitats are that the European zoos allows more of an invasive and lethal approach where as the united state’s approach is more towards less invasive and letting the animal naturally die. Both approaches do not make any sense to me, because it doesn’t really matter. One way or another the end result is ultimately the same. Europeans can play “god” and choose to kill animals, which they believe should die, or American can allow animals to live, and let them naturally die. But based on my observation it seems that most people believe that forcing animals to die and letting the humans play “god” seems to be frowned upon. It seems that most people favor the natural approach. But in conclusion personally I do not think the American zoos are better than the European zoos or the European zoos are better than the American zoos. They both seem to have their own valid and unique and justifiable reasoning.